many of them are there solely to rip you off of your hard earned dollars
I gamble online on many different sites and none of them have tried to rip me off nor have I heard of any of them ripping people off. These sites are making so much money from being ligitimate that there is no reason for them to rip you off. If you are worried about the few small ones that may then only go to ones with a good reputation. Check out site like http://www.flopturnriver.com/ to help you out.
is anyone really more than a few hours away from an Indian casino
No.. but why pay 10% rake at a live game when you can pay 5% rake and multitable poker. I can easily make 10x more money in a day online compared to a casino... and all while watching Good Eats
Maybe, just maybe, our elected legislators have our best interest in heart this time.
Maybe, just maybe, they do. But maybe it isn't their place. Maybe they should outlaw places like Check Into Cash that truly prey on the people with money problems.
Often you define how well a simulation works by how accurate the results are. Sometimes we can't comapre the means just the ends but it's the means that tells "how" and not just "what".
Please.. someone with a statistics background read this. This is what I get out of it though:
1) The study was done on analogue, digital, and cordless phones thus making the sample size for digital (which I think is what we care about) smaller. And if I am reading this correctly then the numbers for all three are similar. If there was a real causation between the phone and the cancer then I would expect big differences (different frequencies and powers).
2) from TFA: these results are based on low numbers and need to be confirmed in other studies.
3) also from TFA: Risk estimates and exposure frequencies in our study enable calculation of the attributable fraction (AF); that is the proportion of cases that can be attributed to the particular exposure. [...] use of cellular or cordless telephones in any combination AF was calculated to be 15%...
For this guy to talk to the press is unethical. He's stirring up the public based on a study he knows to be weak.
I see a lot of talks on physics and more and more I am seeing people use certain buzzwords (like nanoparticle or quantum dot) in their title even though it really has nothing to do with their talk.
This is called sonification. Commercial products can be perchaced that do this. I'm working with a guy that want's to use this on some of the research I have done.
I suppose I am not explaining myself well. How's this: modeling doesn't necessarily help to understand the underlying reason why the system acts that way.
Take critical exponents. We can use a simple model and use simple calculations. Some of the critical exponents we find match closely with experiment. Some do not. Then we do renormalization group theory. The critical exponents we find match much more closely with experiment... but did we learn anything about the underlying cause? We mainly confirmed our original model and just found a new way of doing the calculations. Perhaps I am mistaken. My understanding of renormalization group theory is limited but the basic idea there.
On the other hand take the electron-phonon interaction model of superconductivity. That greatly enhanced our understanding of (the reasons behind) superconductivity.
In the case of this article however it seems like they just solved a model for phase transitions that had not previously been solved. Perhaps even it was a model that had been solved but they did it a different way or used one less assumption. The point is I saw nothing that indicated that we now have a better understanding of what happens near the transition temperature. As far as I know scientists already have a very good idea of what happens.
"What about the understanding that the Earth is not the center of the universe?"
I'm referring to understanding of basic physics. That's just an observation of basic physics. They still had no idea why.
"Also, we still don't know what gravity is."
That's why I worded it the way I did. I never said that we knew... but we do have an idea.
Modeling itself is (very) important but just because you find a model that fits observations does not mean that we have a better understanding of what causes the observations.
I know all about this. I know all about critical exponents and scaling and renormalization group theory and superconductivity and BCS theory and... all of that. I am a condensed matter physicist.
None of that is relevant to my point. I am an experimentalist. I make and measure compounds looking for new physics. If I find a compound with an odd spike in specific heat or a superconducting critical temperature 10K above what is expected then my job only begins. Discovery is one thing (great for chemists) but finding out the reason is the job of the physicist.
Finding a program to model something is great.. don't get me wrong. I understand that many times in our past we had ways to model something before we could understand what we were modeling... if fact see my original post. A huge chunk (if not all) physics is modeling. But having a model does not mean that we better understand the physics behind it. That is my point. Not that it's worthless. Not that it should be tossed out. Only that it does nothing for our understanding.
This is all fine and dandy but does it help us understand the physics behind it? Long before we (the human race) had any idea what gravity was, we could predict the movement of the planets... but no understanding came of this. Same here. Just because we can write a program to simulate observables doesn't mean we understand them any better. This might be a step in the right direction but it just as easily could lead us away.
In short... this does nothing for our "understanding" of phase changes.
This has been done in the past many times. Parents are at the will of the companies.
1) Parent promises child Thing for Christmas.
2) Parent cannot get Thing.
3) Parent buys many other (and/or more expensive) things to compensate.
4) Parent goes out in January (when the stores have many Things in stock) and buys Thing for child.
5) Profit... for the company that makes Thing.
This is all in addition to the media hype surrounding Thing. It's a great way to drive up sales after Christmas when sales are at a low. Most companies just aren't this blatent about it.
To falsify THAT, you would have to rule out an infinite number of natural/random processes.
Or we could prove it by showing that "SOME unintelligent natural/random process created a living organism."
Scientists have not done this but they have shown how protiens could have formed on the primative Earth. Just give them more time.
And another thing... evolution is not random. Quite the opposite as a matter of fact.
I did not present the theory to be taken as fact... only to show that there may be colder places that reside in the universe. And you're right, the usual model is generic... and classically derived. In my opinion it is silly to treat a black hole classically when trying to figure out what a black hole really is.
Slashdot Mirror
I still get a bit teary eyed when I hear "Eyes on Me" by Faye Wong.
The one on the left. That's the one my cable is pluged into... as you look at it from the back. Does that help?
It went down at the same time my UPS decided to explode. I was on the internet at the time. I must have broke it.
many of them are there solely to rip you off of your hard earned dollars
I gamble online on many different sites and none of them have tried to rip me off nor have I heard of any of them ripping people off. These sites are making so much money from being ligitimate that there is no reason for them to rip you off. If you are worried about the few small ones that may then only go to ones with a good reputation. Check out site like http://www.flopturnriver.com/ to help you out.
is anyone really more than a few hours away from an Indian casino
No.. but why pay 10% rake at a live game when you can pay 5% rake and multitable poker. I can easily make 10x more money in a day online compared to a casino... and all while watching Good Eats
Maybe, just maybe, our elected legislators have our best interest in heart this time.
Maybe, just maybe, they do. But maybe it isn't their place. Maybe they should outlaw places like Check Into Cash that truly prey on the people with money problems.
cowboys squatting next to a fire would find that the rivet had become quite hot when they stood up
I call that a feature. Too bad I don't hang out near fires that often or I would have to find me a pair of those.
I just tried the Lasso'n'Cross on my real desk and it just made a bigger mess.
I propose a clinical study where each test subject is given real boogers or placebo boogers for a period of months
Real would have to mean other peoples... and shouldn't it be fresh? Wonder how that would work...
Homework on /.!? Homework on monday!? Ug. I'll just wait and copy off of someone else.
Often you define how well a simulation works by how accurate the results are. Sometimes we can't comapre the means just the ends but it's the means that tells "how" and not just "what".
Simply put... anything with no mass does not have a reference frame. And I am an actual physicist.
+10 Informative
Please.. someone with a statistics background read this. This is what I get out of it though:
1) The study was done on analogue, digital, and cordless phones thus making the sample size for digital (which I think is what we care about) smaller. And if I am reading this correctly then the numbers for all three are similar. If there was a real causation between the phone and the cancer then I would expect big differences (different frequencies and powers).
2) from TFA: these results are based on low numbers and need to be confirmed in other studies.
3) also from TFA: Risk estimates and exposure frequencies in our study enable calculation of the attributable fraction (AF); that is the proportion of cases that can be attributed to the particular exposure. [...] use of cellular or cordless telephones in any combination AF was calculated to be 15%...
For this guy to talk to the press is unethical. He's stirring up the public based on a study he knows to be weak.
I see a lot of talks on physics and more and more I am seeing people use certain buzzwords (like nanoparticle or quantum dot) in their title even though it really has nothing to do with their talk.
I think the most important part of that statement is this
they surveyed 100 college students.
100 is a very small sample size. The correlation my not even be there.
I heard that you could do the same thing (and more) with the bumps on your head.
This is called sonification. Commercial products can be perchaced that do this. I'm working with a guy that want's to use this on some of the research I have done.
I suppose I am not explaining myself well. How's this: modeling doesn't necessarily help to understand the underlying reason why the system acts that way.
Take critical exponents. We can use a simple model and use simple calculations. Some of the critical exponents we find match closely with experiment. Some do not. Then we do renormalization group theory. The critical exponents we find match much more closely with experiment... but did we learn anything about the underlying cause? We mainly confirmed our original model and just found a new way of doing the calculations. Perhaps I am mistaken. My understanding of renormalization group theory is limited but the basic idea there.
On the other hand take the electron-phonon interaction model of superconductivity. That greatly enhanced our understanding of (the reasons behind) superconductivity.
In the case of this article however it seems like they just solved a model for phase transitions that had not previously been solved. Perhaps even it was a model that had been solved but they did it a different way or used one less assumption. The point is I saw nothing that indicated that we now have a better understanding of what happens near the transition temperature. As far as I know scientists already have a very good idea of what happens.
I'm referring to understanding of basic physics. That's just an observation of basic physics. They still had no idea why.
"Also, we still don't know what gravity is."
That's why I worded it the way I did. I never said that we knew... but we do have an idea.
Modeling itself is (very) important but just because you find a model that fits observations does not mean that we have a better understanding of what causes the observations.
None of that is relevant to my point. I am an experimentalist. I make and measure compounds looking for new physics. If I find a compound with an odd spike in specific heat or a superconducting critical temperature 10K above what is expected then my job only begins. Discovery is one thing (great for chemists) but finding out the reason is the job of the physicist.
Finding a program to model something is great.. don't get me wrong. I understand that many times in our past we had ways to model something before we could understand what we were modeling... if fact see my original post. A huge chunk (if not all) physics is modeling. But having a model does not mean that we better understand the physics behind it. That is my point. Not that it's worthless. Not that it should be tossed out. Only that it does nothing for our understanding.
This is all fine and dandy but does it help us understand the physics behind it? Long before we (the human race) had any idea what gravity was, we could predict the movement of the planets... but no understanding came of this. Same here. Just because we can write a program to simulate observables doesn't mean we understand them any better. This might be a step in the right direction but it just as easily could lead us away.
In short... this does nothing for our "understanding" of phase changes.
I wonder why you worry about efficiency when dealing with a spreadsheet?
This has been done in the past many times. Parents are at the will of the companies.
1) Parent promises child Thing for Christmas.
2) Parent cannot get Thing.
3) Parent buys many other (and/or more expensive) things to compensate.
4) Parent goes out in January (when the stores have many Things in stock) and buys Thing for child.
5) Profit... for the company that makes Thing.
This is all in addition to the media hype surrounding Thing. It's a great way to drive up sales after Christmas when sales are at a low. Most companies just aren't this blatent about it.
To falsify THAT, you would have to rule out an infinite number of natural/random processes. Or we could prove it by showing that "SOME unintelligent natural/random process created a living organism." Scientists have not done this but they have shown how protiens could have formed on the primative Earth. Just give them more time. And another thing... evolution is not random. Quite the opposite as a matter of fact.
Here's some evolution for you... blah blah
That is not evolution. That is adaptation.
Tidal forces are do to gradients in gravity... completely irrelevant to this topic.
I did not present the theory to be taken as fact... only to show that there may be colder places that reside in the universe. And you're right, the usual model is generic... and classically derived. In my opinion it is silly to treat a black hole classically when trying to figure out what a black hole really is.